I'm assuming that the question you keep referring to is whether or not Bush had an unopposed UN resolution. My answer would be no.....but so what? Is there some kind of rule that says unopposed resolutions are mandatory?
Of course not, but I mentioned this because of your "double standards" thread in the Alley. It's a bit much for you to bemoan the fact that Obama does what the heck he likes and the press just let him get away with it, while at the same time ignoring the fact that Bush's/Blair's "transgressions" were a zillion times more heinous in the eyes of the objective world.
The point I was making is that much of the rest of the world probably couldn't care a toss whether Bush had Congressional approval or not - the internal workings of a sausage machine aren't of much interest to the consumer of a hotdog.
The UN, on the other hand, although it may be an irrelevance to the more arrogant of your intelligentsia, does matter to the remainder of the world in varying degrees.
As Denise pointed out, Bush spent almost a year trying to work with the UN to get them to enforce the resolutions they imposed on Iraq. He then went to congress. If you have issues with that, then I have no idea what your stance is, especially when you say "if Bush had bothered to "consult" anyone we'd never have got Saddam hanged."
I love the phrase "work with" - bulldoze would be more appropriate! On the eve of what most of the world considered was an illegal war this was the position of the security council members (Wiki):
* United States - The U.S. maintained that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors and had not met its obligations to 17 UN resolutions. The U.S. felt that Resolution 1441 called for the immediate, total unilateral disarmament of Iraq and continued to show frustration at the fact that months after the resolution was passed Iraq was still not, in its view, disarming. Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of Resolution 1441, then military action would be the result.
* United Kingdom - Within the Security Council, the UK was the primary supporter of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly and vigorously supported U.S. policy on Iraq, and portrayed himself as exerting a moderating influence on Bush. British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war was deteriorating. It had fallen from 50 percent to 30 percent by March.
* France - On 20 January 2003, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs. France also suggested that it would veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the US or Britain. The most important French speech during the crisis was made by De Villepin at the Security Council on the 14 February 2003, after Hans Blix presented his detailed report (see below). De Villepin detailed the three major risks of a "premature recourse to the military option", especially the "incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region". He said that "the option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace", words which proved to be very prescient. He emphasized that "real progress is beginning to be apparent" through the inspections, and that, "given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies", the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad explained by Colin Powell were not established. He concluded by referring to the dramatic experience of "old Europe" during World War II. This "impassioned" speech "against war on Iraq, or immediate war on Iraq", won "an unprecedented applause", reported the BBC's Sir David Frost (BBC News). The complete text is available at the Embassy of France in the United States. Britain and the US sharply criticized France for this position in March 2003.
* Russia - On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begun to shift following a report the previous day by UN inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm. Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he would support a US-led war if things did not change and Iraq continued to show a reluctance to completely cooperate with inspection teams. However, Putin continued to stress that the US must not go alone in any such military endeavor, but instead must work through the UN Security Council. He also stressed the need for giving the UN inspectors more time. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also garnered unusual applause inside the chamber with his speech against the war.
* China - The People's Republic of China supported continued weapons inspections. On January 23, the Washington Post reported that the Chinese position was "extremely close" to that of France.
* Germany - On January 22, German chancellor Gerhard Schr÷der, at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac, said that he and Chirac would do all they could to avert war. At the time, Germany was presiding over the Security Council.
* Angola - Angola supported continued inspections, but had not taken a stand on disarmament by military action.
* Bulgaria - Bulgaria suggested that it would support the use of military force to disarm Iraq, even without UN backing.
* Cameroon - Cameroon encouraged the continued inspections, but had not taken a firm stand on whether the country would support a US led strike to invade Iraq.
* Chile - Chile indicated that it would like inspections to continue, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.
* Guinea - Guinea supported further inspections, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.
* Mexico - Mexico supported further inspections, and hinted that it would support a US-led military campaign if it were backed by the UN. The country also hinted that it might consider supporting a military campaign without UN backing as well. President Vicente Fox heavily criticized the war when it started and Mexican diplomats described their conversations with U.S. officials as hostile in tone and that Washington was demonstrating little concern for the constraints of the Mexican government whose people were overwhelmingly opposed to the war with Iraq. (USA Today)
* Pakistan - Pakistan supported continued inspections.
* Syria - Syria felt that Iraq was cooperating and meeting its obligations under UN resolutions. Syria would have liked to see the crippling UN sanctions on Iraq lifted.
* Spain - Spain supported the US's position on Iraq and supported the use of force to disarm Iraq, even without UN approval.
You refer to Blair as being deluded. You refer to the countries joining the US and England as being "tin-pot" and then you follow that with "Mike, they were precisely my thoughts on Bush and Blair going into Iraq. I thought they were heros standing up to the world."
There's no inconsistency of approach. As for Bush/Blair/Iraq, I don't mind admitting at all, that I changed my mind somewhat. I did agree with the war at the outset, and in fact even now I am uncertain as to whether it was "good" or "bad". I agreed with it even though, I was pretty sure Bush and Blair were either lying or else genuinely deluded.
Later I came to believe that both men were wrong to do what they did. Not because of the suspect motives and shaky evidence for going in, but because in their anxiety to clobber a nasty man they omitted to put in the thinking and planning for the most important part of any conflict - the latter stages and the aftermath. That, in my book, was at best negligent and at worst, criminally negligent. It remains to be seen how Obama performs.
You seem to applaud Obama going in for "humanitarian" reasons. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of Iraquis. Iraq was littered with secret prisons, complete with torture devices, from which people interred were never seen again. He murdered thousands of Kurds by gassing entire villages. Thousands of children under the age of 5 died of starvations every year. That is why I made the statement that I cannot understand how someone could support Libya action and not support Iraq decisions.
Like I say, I agree with you on this. I still think that, despite the lies, despite the fact that they were bucking most of world opinion, despite the fact that Bush probably had a personal vendetta on his mind rather than the maltreated Iraqis, the idea of clobbering Saddam was good. The execution of that clobbering however, while initially ok (as ok as killing innocent civilians can ever be), turned out to be incompetent, and unforgivable, thereby tarnishing the whole expedition fatally.